If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Courts Justices' jobs found to only contain 2% work and 98% refusing to rule on relevant, important issues   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 57
    More: Obvious, Coca-Cola, Supreme Court, pomegranate juice, grape juices, POM Wonderful, Minute Maid  
•       •       •

4561 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 4:50 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-12 03:45:45 PM
I consider the ability for a company to get sued for making misleading claims on its packaging to be a relevant, important issue.
 
2014-06-12 04:51:54 PM
So, like Congress then.
 
2014-06-12 04:53:41 PM
You would say that, if you were completely ignorant of how precedent is made in our legal system.
 
2014-06-12 04:54:09 PM

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: So, like Congress then.


Except occasionally SCOTUS actually does something useful...
 
2014-06-12 04:54:11 PM
Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.
 
2014-06-12 04:55:28 PM

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: So, like Congress then.


2% would be an improvement for congress
 
2014-06-12 04:55:28 PM

medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.


You mean "irregardless".
 
2014-06-12 04:57:41 PM
They refuse 98% of the stuff because they all agree with the lower court rulings.
 
2014-06-12 04:58:19 PM

medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.


They can be impeached, but it's never happened.
 
2014-06-12 04:58:37 PM

RodneyToady: I consider the ability for a company to get sued for making misleading claims on its packaging to be a relevant, important issue.


Yes, however, it's not really something that rises to the level of SCOTUS attention, in most people's opinion.  Especially when this is a group that routinely rejects cases that are exceptionally important, relevant, and needing arbitration to clarify law.
 
2014-06-12 04:58:59 PM

RodneyToady: I consider the ability for a company to get sued for making misleading claims on its packaging to be a relevant, important issue.


Well yea.  To you.  You're a consumer.  If you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court generally takes the side of business.
 
2014-06-12 04:59:01 PM
Actually, making sense out of which of several apparently contradictory but also apparently equal federal rules and legal principles is applicable in a particular case or type of case is highly relevant.  Courts are there to interpret the law.
 
2014-06-12 04:59:50 PM
As much as I don't like certain justices... The SCOTUS does do a lot of work.
Hell, these days one could argue that they have more effect on the nation than congress does.
 
2014-06-12 05:04:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: You would say that, if you were completely ignorant of how precedent is made in our legal system.


Indeed. Shill-like typing detected in TFA
 
2014-06-12 05:05:08 PM

Summoner101: RodneyToady: I consider the ability for a company to get sued for making misleading claims on its packaging to be a relevant, important issue.

Well yea.  To you.  You're a consumer.  If you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court generally takes the side of business.


This was actually a case of one business suing another, but...
 
2014-06-12 05:06:56 PM

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: So, like Congress then.


done in 2
 
2014-06-12 05:07:02 PM
Subby's headline is farked up.  SCOTUS did well here.
 
2014-06-12 05:07:20 PM
Where do you get that 98% figure from? Is it because they turn down a lot of cases that are appealed to that level?

According to their website, they get about 7000 appeals every year and hear 100-150 of them. Considering that the *supreme* court will establish an unimpeachable precedent to rule the entire nation, I'm pretty OK with them turning over a case every two or three days.

Or, are you saying 98% because you feel that the supreme court just isn't ruling on the issues that you feel are important? Frankly, I'm glad that we don't have a SCOTUS that can unilaterally decide to start handing down decisions on whatever they feel is important. At that point, you've pretty much just made a third legislature.
 
2014-06-12 05:10:43 PM
When the history books are written, this is the kind of stupid shiat that occupied one of the highest governmental bodies of the American Empire.

/obviously Coke+Minute Maid should lose this
//still sad the USSC has to deal with this
 
2014-06-12 05:13:42 PM
So they're gonna throw down and try to beat congress-critters to being a complete waste of human skin?

DNRTFA. Rat's ass....none left.
 
2014-06-12 05:14:29 PM
Refusing to rule, aka  stare decisis, or in the words of the immortal philosophers Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart "If you choose not to decide,you still have made a choice"
 
2014-06-12 05:16:10 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.

You mean "irregardless".


Carry on regardless.
 
2014-06-12 05:17:47 PM

Fark like a Barsoomian: When the history books are written, this is the kind of stupid shiat that occupied one of the highest governmental bodies of the American Empire.

/obviously Coke+Minute Maid should lose this
//still sad the USSC has to deal with this


Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.
 
2014-06-12 05:20:56 PM
They need term limits.
 
2014-06-12 05:22:22 PM

Fubini: Where do you get that 98% figure from? Is it because they turn down a lot of cases that are appealed to that level?

According to their website, they get about 7000 appeals every year and hear 100-150 of them. Considering that the *supreme* court will establish an unimpeachable precedent to rule the entire nation, I'm pretty OK with them turning over a case every two or three days.

Or, are you saying 98% because you feel that the supreme court just isn't ruling on the issues that you feel are important? Frankly, I'm glad that we don't have a SCOTUS that can unilaterally decide to start handing down decisions on whatever they feel is important. At that point, you've pretty much just made a third legislature.


Or is the 2% versus 98% a joke referencing the misleading amounts of fruit juice in the case?

Not going to say it's a GOOD joke . .

. . it's just better than the joke I had when I submitted this with a crappier headline.
 
2014-06-12 05:29:25 PM

toraque: Or is the 2% versus 98% a joke referencing the misleading amounts of fruit juice in the case?


I think that 98% of the people in this thread didn't catch the joke.
 
2014-06-12 05:29:27 PM

medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.


Not even Diana Ross?
 
2014-06-12 05:33:42 PM

wantingout: They need term limits.


For doing the job exactly as intended?

Granted a lot of the decisions concerning campaign finance have sucked within the last few years, but that's not a reason to toss out the system, more like vote people into Congress who aren't a bunch of shameless chuckleheads.
 
2014-06-12 05:34:10 PM
Propaganda from the Usual Suspects.

Propaganda  Propaganda   Propaganda   Propaganda  and so on ..
 
2014-06-12 05:37:16 PM

wantingout: They need term limits.


They have term limits. The term is limited to their lifetime.
 
2014-06-12 05:38:10 PM

Khellendros: Yes, however, it's not really something that rises to the level of SCOTUS attention, in most people's opinion. Especially when this is a group that routinely rejects cases that are exceptionally important, relevant, and needing arbitration to clarify law.


Unfortunately, most people are morons.  See, e.g., reality TV or the reelection rates of congressmen.
 
2014-06-12 05:40:48 PM

Uzzah: Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.


Exactly - this is the kind of extremely important jurisdictional and right of action case that has HUGE ramifications for federal litigation for decades to come.  The fact that it doesn't involve (1) abortion (2) election financing or (3) religious freedom, however, means that some people think it is unimportant.
 
2014-06-12 05:41:04 PM
I can still remember being shocked when I read the ingredient list for V-8's pomegranate blueberry juice and found out one of the top ingredients was POTATOES.
 
2014-06-12 05:41:15 PM

leevis: medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.

They can be impeached, but it's never happened.


Yes it has.
 
2014-06-12 05:42:10 PM

rockforever: Yes it has.


www.michaelariens.com
he sees what you did there.
 
2014-06-12 05:45:25 PM

fusillade762: I can still remember being shocked when I read the ingredient list for V-8's pomegranate blueberry juice and found out one of the top ingredients was POTATOES.


Yeah, when I found that out, I slapped my forehead and said "I coulda had a vodak!"
 
2014-06-12 05:52:34 PM

fusillade762: I can still remember being shocked when I read the ingredient list for V-8's pomegranate blueberry juice and found out one of the top ingredients was POTATOES.


Did they count how many?
 
2014-06-12 05:57:42 PM

fusillade762: I can still remember being shocked when I read the ingredient list for V-8's pomegranate blueberry juice and found out one of the top ingredients was POTATOES.


oi60.tinypic.com

Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a ...V-8.
 
2014-06-12 06:01:27 PM
The majority of the time the SCOTUS is reading the cases to decide if it should go forward.  Refusing to go ahead with a hearing is actually them making a ruling, that the lower court's decision is correct.
 
2014-06-12 06:05:34 PM
so, w/o reading the article, they decided to deny a defendant's motion for no cause of action?  sounds like the safe thing to do, on pre-trial motions like this, you usually err on the side of letting a suit go forward.

is this earth shattering for some reason?  (like i said, dnrtfa or any actual case stuff)
 
2014-06-12 06:09:53 PM

leevis: medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.

They can be impeached, but it's never happened.


For your edification:

WP: Samuel Chase

People who argue this is the most blatantly partisan time in our history have no idea what the first twenty years under the Constitution were like.
 
2014-06-12 06:11:10 PM

Teiritzamna: Uzzah: Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.

Exactly - this is the kind of extremely important jurisdictional and right of action case that has HUGE ramifications for federal litigation for decades to come.  The fact that it doesn't involve (1) abortion (2) election financing or (3) religious freedom, however, means that some people think it is unimportant.


Exactly, this isn't relevant to Single Issue Voters (Don't forget (4) Gun rights), that means that to many people, this is considered a waste of time and wasting taxpayer dollars.

. . .they'd rather see the House passing the 284th attempt to repeal/defund the Affordable Care Act and the Senate fillibuster everything they can just so they can blame the failures on President Obama.

For all my complaints with SCOTUS (lookin' at you Scalia/Thomas), those 9 Justices do more actual work, governance and mature leadership than 535 Congressmen combined.
 
2014-06-12 06:34:34 PM

LibertyHiller: leevis: medic2731: Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.

They can be impeached, but it's never happened.

For your edification:

WP: Samuel Chase

People who argue this is the most blatantly partisan time in our history have no idea what the first twenty years under the Constitution were like.


It's the most partisan and most divided the country has been since the Civil War/Reconstruction era.

It's been as bad, or worse, but not in living memory.
 
2014-06-12 06:40:31 PM

geekbikerskum: Actually, making sense out of which of several apparently contradictory but also apparently equal federal rules and legal principles is applicable in a particular case or type of case is highly relevant.  Courts are there to interpret the law.


I'm not doing any background but sounds like Coca Cola's lawyers were arguing that since the FDA approved their label that POM was shait out of luck in their deceptive marketing lawsuit. Really farking weird that the decision was unanimous against. Probably had to do with it being two corporations duking it out.
 
2014-06-12 06:44:09 PM
Misleading labeling has been a huge problem for years to the point where the FDA explicitly allows lies of omission in labeling ( like the example in the article ). Given that the FDA was made to help inform customers and no longer does that the ruling is important and beneficial.

/The % juice joke sucked, subby
 
2014-06-12 07:24:04 PM

Uzzah: Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.


That doesn't sound all that interesting. Whichever comes later trumps the other. (Of course there are an infinite number of phrasings that could still make that interesting, if they had a "notwithstanding" somewhere in there or whatever.)
 
2014-06-12 10:17:48 PM
Lawyer Kathleen Sullivan argued the name and label met Food and Drug Administration approval and "Do you know how much it cost us to bribe them? we don't think that consumers are quite as unintelligent as Pom must think they are."
 
2014-06-13 12:50:03 AM
I wonder if this is actually just a setting up for a big GMO labeling battle that's sure to get to them eventually. They may just want to set a precedent where Coke wins and then reject the whole GMO thing.
 
2014-06-13 08:34:39 AM

RodneyToady: fusillade762: I can still remember being shocked when I read the ingredient list for V-8's pomegranate blueberry juice and found out one of the top ingredients was POTATOES.

[oi60.tinypic.com image 320x135]

Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a ...V-8.


My dad calls V-8 potato juice.
 
2014-06-13 09:37:37 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: I wonder if this is actually just a setting up for a big GMO labeling battle that's sure to get to them eventually. They may just want to set a precedent where Coke wins and then reject the whole GMO thing.


Wait what?
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report